In re Glaubman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Glaubman

278 A.D. 346, 105 N.Y.S.2d 199, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3807

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 12, 1951

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 278 A.D. 346 (In re Glaubman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Glaubman, 278 A.D. 346, 105 N.Y.S.2d 199, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3807 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent received $3,500 to be used for the purchase of certain surplus Government merchandise, $5,000 for the purchase of a specified parcel of real property and $250 as reimbursement for alleged expenses in the first transaction. He has been charged with converting these moneys. The Official Referee to whom the charges were referred has found after trial that the charge based on the alleged conversion of the $250 item has not been sustained. Of the $3,500 received for the first transaction, $1,000 was repaid as an incident to and as an inducement for the second transaction. Subsequently, respondent repaid $2,200, leaving unaccounted for a total of $5,300.

The Official Referee has reported that in his opinion the charges against the respondent arising out of the surplus Government merchandise and the real property transactions have been “ amply sustained ” and found “ it impossible to accept as credible ”, respondent’s claim that the moneys were given to him only as personal loans. The respondent’s contention that the relationship between the parties involved in these transactions was not that of attorney and client is no defense to a charge of misconduct by an attorney (Matter of Arrow, 248 App. Div. 490; Matter of Feingold, 252 App. Div. 547).

The report of the Official Referee should be confirmed and the respondent disbarred.

Peck, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Van Yoorhis and McCurn, JJ., concur.

Respondent disbarred. [See 279 App. Div. 577.]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Respondent received $3,500 to be used for the purchase of certain surplus Government merchandise, $5,000 for the purchase of a specified parcel of real property and $250 as reimbursement for alleged expenses in the first transaction. He has been charged with converting these moneys. The Official Referee to whom the charges were referred has found after trial that the charge based on the alleged conversion of the $250 item has not been sustained. Of the $3,500 received for the first transaction, $1,000 was repaid as an incident to and as an inducement for the second transaction. Subsequently, respondent repaid $2,200, leaving unaccounted for a total of $5,300.

The Official Referee has reported that in his opinion the charges against the respondent arising out of the surplus Government merchandise and the real property transactions have been “ amply sustained ” and found “ it impossible to accept as credible ”, respondent’s claim that the moneys were given to him only as personal loans. The respondent’s contention that the relationship between the parties involved in these transactions was not that of attorney and client is no defense to a charge of misconduct by an attorney (Matter of Arrow, 248 App. Div. 490; Matter of Feingold, 252 App. Div. 547).

The report of the Official Referee should be confirmed and the respondent disbarred.

Peck, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Van Yoorhis and McCurn, JJ., concur.

Respondent disbarred. [See 279 App. Div. 577.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D. 346, 105 N.Y.S.2d 199, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-glaubman-nyappdiv-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack